Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#81

Post by avn2109 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #37
throwaway13337 wrote: post #31

While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems…

The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles . Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.

>> "...and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles."

@eli_gottleib: Where can we read more about this? It feels true but I'd like to see more details.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#82

Post by elipsey »

planfaster wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

Surely you don't believe that subsistence farming is the maximally productive occupation for every homeless person!

I agree that living in a city is not a “human right”. While, problems 1, 2, and 3 are apparently the most important poverty related problems from your point of view (perhaps because you don't want to pay for them), it's not clear that they are the most important problems causing poverty or homelessness in cities. For example, I have had many years of education, but I have sometimes been unemployed. Without the ability to move or retrain I would have been homeless, but not because I was completely uneducated, or unwilling to work, or unable to learn new skills. I'm sure you recognize that the labor market is dynamic and not perfectly liquid.

Either you unnecessarily assume that the homeless must all be un-, or under-employed because they have no education at all, or prefer to "game the system" rather than work, which is not evidenced, or you don't care that most of them could be more productive in some occupation other then subsistence farming, which is not efficient.

Only if all poverty were cause by ignorance, stupidity, or sloth, would subsistence agriculture be the most productive conceivable use for the labor of all homeless people. This could be true of a few homeless or poor people, but certainly not all. Supposing that we care only for efficiency, and not a bit for human dignity or other peoples' happiness, wouldn't you and I still be better off if we chose to retrain or relocate people so that their skills offered some competitive advantage, rather than remove them entirely from the economy?

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#83

Post by logfromblammo »

lhopki01 wrote: post #48
yummyfajitas wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of bot…

Yet ask people where they would prefer to live and more want to live in New York than Houston. A city is more than just a sprawl of houses. Much of the attraction of cities comes from other things.

I'd rather live in Houston than New York.

Of course, I'd also rather live in a paper bag at the bottom of a wet ditch than to be subjected to the local culture, politics, and economy of some cities. (Looking at you, DC sprawl.)

You just can't effectively reduce the personal appeal of cities to a single input variable. But in this case, the ratio of living expenses (incl. housing) to median salaries in the usual suspects roundup of job titles provides a clear advantage to Houston.

Public transportation tips toward New York. Compatibility with local culture tips toward New York. Local politics tips toward New York. Pleasantness of the weather barely tips toward Houston. Non-homogeneity of the populace is a wash. Lower crime rate goes to New York. Availability of tasty food is a wash. Public politeness goes to Houston. Lighter tax burden goes to Houston, big time. On public education, I don't even know.

You can attach an a la carte dollar value to each of the attributes of a city, and sum them up to get a rough desirability value. That's essentially the answer to the question "How much extra would I be willing to pay to live in this new place instead of where I live now?"

You can establish a base value by adding differences in salary and expenses. Then you assign a value to all the subjective things, like being able to buy corn on the cob from a street vendor, or being able to escape the urban sprawl for weekends and vacations. How much is it worth to you to have the option to not drive a car, or to easily find a parking space when you do? How much would someone have to pay you to have neighbors that freak out when they see a dandelion on your lawn? How much would you have to be paid to put up with heavy pollution, or a torturous commute? Add it all up, and the highest-valued city is where you would probably be happiest.

Depending on your preferences, the presence or lack of zoning might be a single factor that could cause you to prefer one city over another, but probably only to the extent that it affects your monthly housing expenses.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#84

Post by yummyfajitas »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #79
yummyfajitas wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only housing" means a rental of a flat to live in for a fixed term. It's a consumption good. Buying property is a speculative investment. Similarly, buying an iPad is consumption while buying AAPL is investment.

I don't understand what you mean by '"Only housing" means a rental of a flat to live in for a fixed term.'. Are you referring to investment in the rental market?

I'm referring to consumption of housing. Renting a house to live in with no prospect of reselling it.

You are discussing the purchasing of a long term stream of housing with the prospect of resale at some future point.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#85

Post by logfromblammo »

chii wrote: post #23
anon4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that sunlight, air and water are pretty much free. Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free (though it requires some effort to take, you're not engaged in a traditional capital transaction with another owner), provided you don't hunt it to extinction. Then again, freezing to death in a snow storm is also free. There's lots of free to go around.

> Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free if you owned the property you caught them on. Otherwise, no, i don't believe you are allowed to "live off the land" in these day and age.

In some nations/states, you don't own any of the species that typically migrates on and off your land. So you don't own the deer in your forest, unless you have a deer-blocking fence running all the way around your property. You don't own migratory birds, ever. Fishing in a stream that flows across your borders? Better have a license.

That said, if you are inconspicuous in your harvest, and stay away from the rangers on public land, you are not likely to be caught poaching by landowners, especially if they are absentees that do not live on or visit the property.

So you aren't lawfully allowed to do it, but you could probably do it anyway without much consequence. Just like homelessness in the city, really, except much, much more difficult.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#86

Post by Mz »

logfromblammo wrote: post #66
dazc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a to…

That sounds to me like using the "longest job first" scheduling algorithm in your OS--very inefficient, and certainly not fair. If every homeless person had an estimate attached for the amount of effort required to return them to mainstream society, you have made the problem of allocating caseworkers to people analogous to CPU resources for a process. An automated algorithm could make the perfectly rational decision…

I think it is far worse than that.

I have chronic health problems and was abused as a child. Here are a few of my opinions:

A very high percentage of people in "helping" professions have a deep need to be needed. It strongly inclines them to want to help you in a way that keeps you in need of a crutch and subtly but actively discourages or prevents you from ever standing on your own two feet.

Many programs have such unhealthy paradigms, you are better off avoiding them if at all possible.

The way we define services has a tendency to entrench the problem.

I am currently homeless and have had a college class on homelessness and public policy and generally read a fair amount over the years about things like the origin of American welfare. I am gradually resolving my very challenging personal problems -- getting healthier, paying down debt, earning more money -- and I run a website aimed at helping homeless people keep their freedom, dignity and agency in the face of a really broken system of assistance.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#87

Post by unethical_ban »

buro9 wrote: post #5
jzwinck wrote: post #2

"We live in a city with 1.5m people living below the poverty line - that means we have 1.5m people at risk of being homeless." Not exactly. First, the poverty line is federal and does not move with the ebb and flow of NYC life. Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. Thir…

> Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. I've been homeless, so perhaps you'll forgive me for being biased against thinking like that. I would never class mental illness as a choice, or of poor decisions whilst someone is suffering mental illness as a choice. It sounds t…

>Would it be different if it were a physical illness? That man is homeless because he chose to be due to having a broken leg.

His leg doesn't make decisions. His mind does. So if a mental illness shapes a person's thoughts for him to "decide" something, then it is choice, albeit manipulated by sickness.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#88

Post by dang »

SG- wrote: post #72
gloves wrote: post #4

In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could poss…

I'm currently in this situation myself, but living slightly up north in Canada (expensive city). I live at friend's mostly empty office, luckily for me it's inside an empty room. I've also gotten a gym membership for a 24 hour place so I can go shower every day. I highly doubt he's 'ok' with the lifestyle, it's simply what's available right now to him. not having your own space really sucks. sadly the building is bei…

Good luck!

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#89

Post by shas3 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. "Homeless" is much too broad. Are you homeless if you prefer "high-profile but low-profit" jobs, as this man did? Well sure, but being homeless does not always mean that conditions outside of your control have left you with no place to live, whi…

I find it hard to understand what circumstances force them into this kind of homelessness. In most cases, within a 1 hr public transit commute, you can find a reasonably priced studio apartment. This reminds me of how poverty can sometimes be tied to behavioral issues, Esther Duflo of MIT has written about this- poor people spending extra money to buy a TV instead of more calories, for example. I wonder if something like that is in play here.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#90

Post by theworstshill »

planfaster wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…

The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…

Did you get your background in austrian economics from 4chan university? Cause thats what it sounds like, heck you overtrolled me.
Post reply on HN